Tripathy v. Feuz

Background

Sanjay Tripathy, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a submission seeking permission for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court case has ended. Tripathy sought to appeal the court’s earlier determination that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not permit recovery of money damages from state officers sued in their individual capacities.

Reasoning

The court denied Tripathy’s request. It relied on the Second Circuit’s binding decision in Tanvir v. Tanzin, which the Supreme Court had affirmed, and concluded that the proposed appeal did not involve a controlling legal question on which there was substantial disagreement.

The court also ruled that the earlier October 24 order was not appealable because it was not a final decision. Although that order dismissed some claims against some defendants, it did not dismiss every claim against every defendant. It also transferred the remaining claims against the remaining defendants to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Therefore, the clerk’s judgment entered on October 26 did not constitute a final judgment.

Disposition

The court denied the request for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Tripathy permission to appeal without prepaying court costs. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Tripathy.